Important Point
When an expert body gives some considered opinion, Court should not normally sit in appeal over such opinion.

Headnote:(a)University Law – UGC Regulations not expressly mentioning qualification in ‘relevant subject’ for appointment to the post of reader – The words in ‘relevant subject’ have to be read into the qualification for the post of reader (Para 11)
       AIR 1959 SC 198; AIR 1981 SC 1744; AIR 2000 SC 135; AIR 1975 SC 2216 – Relied upon.
       (b)Interpretation of statutes – UGC Regulations – Utilizing the Mimansa principle, the expression ‘relevant subject’ should also be inserted in the qualification for the post of Reader after the words “at the Master’s degree level”. (Para 26)
       (c)Judicial Review – Normally it is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally are. (Para 29)
       (2001)8 SCC 546; AIR 1965 SC 491; JT 1991 (4) SC 75; JT 1992(1) SC 583; AIR 1986 SC 1448 : 1986 Supp. SCC 740; (2004)6 SCC 661; (2000) 3 SCC 59; (1977) 1 SCC 279; (2001)8 SCC 427; (1999)9 SCC 573 – Relied upon.
       (d)University Law – Appointment – UGC opining that qualifications in political science and public administration are interchangeable for appointment to the post of Reader in these subjects – Court should not sit in appeal over the opinion of the expert body. (Para 31)
       (2001)8 SCC 532 – Distinguished.
       (e)Precedent – Decision of a Court is a precedent if it lays down some principle of law supported by reasons – Mere casual observations or directions without laying down any principle of law and without giving reasons does not amount to a precedent. (Para 38)
       (1999)6 SCC 172; (1999)9 SCC 573; (1999)6 SCC 172; (2003)7 SCC 197; AIR 1968 SC 647; (1987)1 SCC 213; (2003)2 SC 111; AIR 2004 SC 4778 – Relied upon.
       Facts of the case :
       1.The respondent-university issued an advertisement for direct recruitment for various posts, including the post of Reader in Public Administration.
       2.The appellant herein applied for the aforementioned post. A Selection Committee interviewed the appellant on 18.7.2004. The appellant was selected as Reader and he joined as such on 4.4.2005.
       3.Respondent No. 2 herein, Dr. Raj Kumar Siwach, who was a Lecturer in Public Administration had also applied for the post of Reader, but he was not selected and instead the appellant was selected. Hence, respondent No. 2 filed a writ petition in the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
       4.The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 21.9.2006 allowed the writ petition and set aside the selection and appointment of the appellant.
       Findings of the Court :
       High Court’s judgment cannot be sustained.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

Judgment

Markandey Katju, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.This appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment and Order dated 21.9.2006 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 6642 of 2005.

3.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4.The short question in this appeal is whether the appellant fulfills the requisite academic qualification for appointment to the post of Reader in Public Administration in Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa.

5.The respondent-university issued an advertisement for direct recruitment for various posts, including the post of Reader in Public Administration. The appellant herein, claiming to be fully eligible and qualified for the post of Reader in Public Administration, applied for the aforementioned post on the prescribed format. A Selection Committee interviewed the appellant on 18.7.2004 as per the call letter dated 8.7.2004. The appellant was selected as Reader and he joined as such on 4.4.2005.

6.Respondent No. 2 herein, Dr. Raj Kumar Siwach, who was a Lecturer in Public Administration had also applied for the post of Reader, but he was not selected and instead the appellant was selected. Hence, respondent No. 2 filed a writ petition in the Punjab & Haryana High Court being CWP No. 6642/2005 in which he alleged that the appellant herein, Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal, did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Reader in Public Administration. It was alleged in the writ petition that the appellant was an M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science and not in Public Administration. Hence, it was alleged that the appellant was not eligible for being selected and appointed as Reader in Public Administration.

7.In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 1, the University, it was stated that Public Administration is one of the branches of Political Science, and hence the appellant herein was rightly selected by the Selection Committee consisting of eminent experts after evaluating his academic qualifications.

8.In the counter affidavit filed by the appellant herein before the High Court it was admitted that the appellant had his qualification from the discipline of Political Science, but it was asserted that he was subjected to a process of selection before an expert committee consisting of the Vice Chancellor of the University, Dr. L. Goyal, Professor of Public Administration, Punjab University and Dr. R.K. Tiwari, a Professor in Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi.

9.The High Court by the impugned Judgment dated 21.9.2006 allowed the writ petition and set aside the selection and appointment of the appellant. The High Court relied on the decision of this Court in Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda vs. Chancellor, Sambalpur University,1 (2001) 8 SCC 532 in which it was observed that the subjects of Public Administration and Political Science are distinct and separate and a person possessing the academic qualification in the discipline of Political Science could not be appointed in the discipline of Public Administration. The High Court also relied on Regulation 2 of the UGC Regulations which states as under :

“2.Qualification :

No persons shall be appointed to a teaching post in university or in any institutions including constituent or affiliated colleges recognized under clause (f) of section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or in an institution deemed to be a university under section 3 of the said Act in a subject if he/she does not fulfill the requirements as to the qualifications for the appropriate subjects as provided in the Annexure.

Provided that any relaxation in the prescribed qualifications can only be made by the University Grants Commission in a particular subject in which NET is not being conducted or enough number of candidates are not available with NET qualifications for a specified period only. (This relaxation, if allowed, would be given based on sound qualification and would apply to affected Universities for that particular subject

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 1190

2008(6) Supreme 56Supreme Court of indiaAltamas Kabir and Markandey Katju, JJ.Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal — AppellantversusChaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa & Anr. — RespondentsCivil Appeal No. 4908 of 2008[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19142/2006]Decided on : 06-08-2008

Important PointWhen an expert body gives some considered opinion, Court should not normally sit in appeal over such opinion.

Cases Referred (20)

Important Point
When an expert body gives some considered opinion, Court should not normally sit in appeal over such opinion.